Why the study?
Multiple techniques have emerged over four decades to optimize long saphenous vein harvesting and reduce adverse clinical outcomes during coronary artery bypass graft surgery.
How do different long saphenous vein harvesting techniques compare in terms of clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction in patients undergoing CABG?
How do different long saphenous vein harvesting techniques compare in terms of clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction in patients undergoing CABG?
This review summarizes the current literature on four long saphenous vein harvesting techniques for CABG, focusing on graft patency, clinical outcomes, and patient satisfaction.
Highlights progress in vein harvesting; leaves open which technique best reduces adverse CABG outcomes.
Ischemic heart disease is the leading cause of mortality and morbidity in the Western world. Thus, coronary artery bypass graft is the most common cardiac procedure performed as it remains the gold standard for multiple vessel disease and left main disease. Long saphenous vein is the conduit of choice for coronary artery bypass graft as it is accessible and easy to harvest. Over the previous 4 decades, several techniques have emerged to optimize harvesting and reducing adverse clinical outcomes. The most cited techniques are open vein harvesting, no-touch technique, endoscopic vein harvesting, and standard bridging technique. In this literature review, we aim to summarize current literature for each of the 4 techniques in terms of: (A) graft patency and attrition, (B) myocardial infarction and revascularization, (C) wound infections, (D) postoperative pain, and (E) patient satisfaction.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Raja et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: